I took the banter (heated at times) as an excellent sort of therapy… the world has gone mad in my commune and this is just what I need. I didn’t add anything, but I did chuckle, groan etc etc… and not always at the same person…
I like the idea of moving it away from the public view, once it does seem to become a bit of a tit for tat, hit for spat. I lost the plot in some of the more longer posts… but that’s me… hic…
As you say, there are many people who don’t contribute because they are put off by the sort of posts that are in this thread. For that reason alone it’s sensible to take this thread to a private group.
Everyone can argue as much as they like now and if anyone is offended they can just leave the group. I like it James!
I feel closed down, shut-up, gagged - whatever you choose to call it. I also feel I’ve wasted a lot of time sharing my thoughts. I feel a bit of a fraud as I started the original survey to which members took the time to respond and now its simply disappeared from the wider SFN (and potential SFN) community - like their opinions simply don’t matter. But…as has been pointed out - it’s not all about me!!! :-
Moderation is one thing but overt censorship is entirely another. Why can’t you just address the ‘offenders’ instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water? #hackedoff
PS : a couple of things…
Let me help you - 1. I like a big ‘audience’ otherwise what’s the point and 2. It hadn’t - not by a long straw 
As you are the OP I understand your frustrations and take them on board. How about this as a way forward, whilst the thread contains those posts that require attention we keep the thread boxed, once they have been address or edited we can reopen the post to the wider community? Would that be acceptable to you?
Or…you could take a vote on it James lol ! :-
Not sure really, I think that ship has sailed and probably best to let it disappear down the Room 101 chute! I find some of the personal attacks fired at me quite wearing. Crikey I must be getting either old or apathetic, or both !! 
In this thread?
Yes James - I recapped at around post 88. But hey I’m probably being over sensitive and need to grow a thicker skin - two more development areas suggested to me recently :-)…
Please don’t make me read the whole thread! Quote something that breaches our T&Cs and we can address it here in our private room, seems like a good approach to me, once we’ve thrashed it all out on the quiet, all will be well it the world no?
Ah ha Simon, a poll on the poll … maybe, as long as Poles, Lithuanians, bakers et al are left out 
Try thread 83 James.
And you still cannot spell!
It is just possible that responses have been few because you are very aggressive. I know that the Editor will be quick to reprove me but there is no other way to describe you. I have read the exchanges between you and others (including myself) and I came to the conclusion that a friendly debate, with respect on both sides for the others point of view, was not going to be possible. It was always going to be an interrogation, the plain assumption being that the intelligence was all on your side. Others shared my opinion which they articulated in the Survive France correspondence.
This paragraph? @simon
Hello Tim
Why is spelling so important to you ? Surely if we can all understand what is being said then what do a few mistakes matter? After all to err is human ! 
Yes James and the comment just made - crikey…troll alert…give me a break 
@timbur would you like to comment? I think your opening paragraph in post 83 is inflammatory, would you agree with that?
Thanks Ann but I suspect spelling isn’t important to him/her - the objective is having a pop at me. What fun 
I was winding Simon up and I would have thought that was obvious from the exclamation mark. However I am making a serious point about the conduct of the site and I hope the many reasonable parties who have contributed to the debate will take the trouble to look at the posts to which I refer.
Initially on Survive France I contented myself with helping people who had some issues with the tax regime; I was delighted to help. Then I responded to a post from Catharine on the Brexit issue, the tone of which I thought patronising . Her comments were issued to the world at large. We had a friendly discussion when she reproved my supposed breach of ettiquette. I then came to the conclusion that considerable licence was provided to people like Simon and David to put people down on that public stage. This was acceptable to those running the site because they shared the same view ie that Brexiteers were dangerous madmen. I observed reasonable people responding to the various goads, and I shared their feelings. David and Simon would argue they were merely promoting a" vigorous debate" but their comments are, in fact, impolite and, seemingly, pass without comment. Just some good old boys having some fun. To illustrate: I refer to Catharine as “patronising” and am reproved. David refers to me as a “hypocrite” and there is no comment.
The reference to “gripping stuff” is illustrative. Simon was demanding concrete examples of how EU membership could be disadvantageous to an individual Brit and someone gave him a polite and detailed illustration. The response “gripping stuff” is a not so subtle put down. See his post 57
I imagine I’m going to regret getting involved (apologies in advance @james) but for someone so keen on correcting the spelling mistakes of others, you should be aware that there is one in your original long post, I believe post 83. Also, you spelt Catharine’s name incorrectly.